| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1975 SLG 535 1975 SLD 535 (1975) 98 ITR 368 |
Punjab and Haryana High Court
INCOME-TAX REFERENCE No. 8 OF 1972 APRIL 23, 1973
HARBANS SINGH, C.J. AND BAL RAJ TULI, J.
D.N. Awasthy and B.S. Gupta for the Applicant. Balraj Kohli and Ram Rang for the
Respondent.
INCOME-TAX REFERENCE No. 8 OF 1972 APRIL 23, 1973
HARBANS SINGH, C.J. AND BAL RAJ TULI, J.
D.N. Awasthy and B.S. Gupta for the Applicant. Balraj Kohli and Ram Rang for the
Respondent.
Additional Commissioner of IncomE tax
v.
Inder Singh Uppal
Law:
Section:
Section 4 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Hindu Undivided Family - Assessable as - Assessment Years 1964-65 to 1966-67 - Whether a joint family can consist of one male member along with other female members and it is not necessary that there must be two male members - Held, yes - Whether it is not necessary that some joint Hindu family property must be in existence before a member of that family impresses his self acquired property with character of joint family property by throwing it voluntarily into common stock of family - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, where AAC and Tribunal accepted version of assessee that he had thrown his share in two firms into joint stock of Hindu undivided family and had impressed that property with character of joint family property, share income from two firms had to be excluded from assessment of assessee made in status of 'individual' - Held, yes FACTS The assessee, was assessed to income-tax in his status as individual for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1966-67. His assessable income included the amount received from two firms as income of assessee's share in those firms. The assessee submitted that he was a partner in those firms not in his individual capacity but as the karta of his Hindu undivided family (HUF) and, therefore, the income from those firms could not be included in his income as individual. The ITO did not accept the submission of the assessee and assessed his income inclusive of the income received from those firms. The AAC allowed the assessee's appeal. The appeal filed the revenue was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that a transaction of throwing any self-acquired property into common hotch-pot was a valid transaction and, after the throwing, the property belonged to the ownership of the family. On reference, the revenue contended that in the absence of another male member of the HUF, the income from the HUF property could be considered the income of the assessee as an individual. HELD A joint family can consist of one male member along with other female members and it is not necessary that there must be two male members and that the property once belonging to the HUF continues to bear that character…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492